France & Maldonado Tangle on Double Play in Seattle

[Lindsay]

Mariners first baseman Ty France turned a blazingly quick double play, catching Astros batter Jose Altuve's infield fly ball before quickly tagging baserunner Martin Maldonado in the 5th inning of Game 3 of the American League Division Series in Seattle. 1B Umpire Cory Blaser officiated the play several feet away while HP Umpire and Crew Chief Marvin Hudson explained the sequence to Houston manager Dusty Baker shortly thereafter.

The broadcasters mentioned that Baker may have sought to solicit an interference call, while also claiming that perhaps France had pushed Maldonado off the base ala the Kent Hrbek-Ron Gant force off play in Game 7 of the 1991 World Series, but replays confirm that fielder France tagged Maldonado off the base, and that Maldonado never made it back to first base to tag up until after the tag was applied.

There is some confusion about the entanglement issue, so perhaps the Official Baseball Rules' definitions for interference and obstruction will help explain.

Interference is an act ordinarily committed by the offense against the defense. It is defined as an infraction by the team at bat which "interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders, or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play." There is a special case for catcher's interference, which must be committed against a batter during a pitched ball (in NFHS/high school, this is ordinarily called catcher's obstruction).

Obstruction is an act ordinarily committed by the defense against the offense and is defined as, "the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner."

However, replays clearly indicate fielder France was either in the act of fielding the ball (the fielder ordinarily has the right of way to field a batted ball) or in possession of the ball at all times during the fielder-runner interaction, so it can be said that no defensive infraction occurred during this fast double play sequence. If anything, one could argue that baserunner Maldonado interfered with France, had France dropped the ball as a result of Maldonado standing off the base and in the way of the catch of a batted ball.

Video as follows:

Alternate Link: France turns double play on Astros' Altuve, Maldonado (CCS)

View the full article

[Velho]

Came back across this play recently...

Can we wait to declare Interference based on the outcome of the play or are we supposed grab at the time the offense starts to interfere?

I can get behind the wait a beat and holistically observe the situation to assess (like R2 rinsing in from of F6 for example) but that feels different than biting our tongue until we see the outcome of the play and then imposing remediation.

[maven]

8 hours ago, Velho said:

Came back across this play recently...

Can we wait to declare Interference based on the outcome of the play or are we supposed grab at the time the offense starts to interfere?

I can get behind the wait a beat and holistically observe the situation to assess (like R2 rinsing in from of F6 for example) but that feels different than biting our tongue until we see the outcome of the play and then imposing remediation.

TL;DR: Yes, we can wait.

We can and should wait. Hasty judgment is unreliable.

The key point (and you know this, but the post is for others too) is to watch for hindrance. When we see a runner (or fielder, for that matter) do something unexpected and "not baseball," we often process the irregularity without being able to put it in a box. That's nothing yet, and we shouldn't be calling anything yet.

Once the runner's actions have clearly hindered the defense—and runner INT should always be clear to everyone watching—then we call it. 

The speed with which we call INT should be as slow as required. This will vary with an umpire's experience. And most conversations with coaches should be of the "correct grasp of the rule" variety, not questions about what the players did (should be obvious)—"No, coach, contact is not required to call INT, the key idea is hindrance."

Newer umpires try to be as fast as the pros, who have decades of experience crammed into their years of training. The window for making these calls varies with level. Calling these infractions too slowly is rare (I've seen runner INT called too slowly only once, where an umpire insisted on talking to me (partner) first before he called it, and that did not go well for either of us when the coach thought I talked him into it). 

OTOH, once we're focused on hindrance rather than (mere) contact, getting INT and OBS calls right becomes rather easier. IME, hindrance is harder to miss than (slight) contact.

And, don't forget to signal a ruling of no INT too: we're there to communicate.